Share this story

In 1878, the American scholar and minister Sebastian Adams put the final touches on the third edition of his grandest project: a massive Synchronological Chart that covers nothing less than the entire history of the world in parallel, with the deeds of kings and kingdoms running along together in rows over 25 horizontal feet of paper. When the chart reaches 1500 BCE, its level of detail becomes impressive; at 400 CE it becomes eyebrow-raising; at 1300 CE it enters the realm of the wondrous. No wonder, then, that in their 2013 book Cartographies of Time: A History of the Timeline, authors Daniel Rosenberg and Anthony Grafton call Adams' chart "nineteenth-century America's surpassing achievement in complexity and synthetic power... a great work of outsider thinking."

The chart is also the last thing that visitors to Kentucky's Creation Museum see before stepping into the gift shop, where full-sized replicas can be purchased for $40.

Further Reading

That's because, in the world described by the museum, Adams' chart is more than a historical curio; it remains an accurate timeline of world history. Time is said to have begun in 4004 BCE with the creation of Adam, who went on to live for 930 more years. In 2348 BCE, the Earth was then reshaped by a worldwide flood, which created the Grand Canyon and most of the fossil record even as Noah rode out the deluge in an 81,000 ton wooden ark. Pagan practices at the eight-story high Tower of Babel eventually led God to cause a "confusion of tongues" in 2247 BCE, which is why we speak so many different languages today.

Adams notes on the second panel of the chart that "all the history of man, before the flood, extant, or known to us, is found in the first six chapters of Genesis."

Ken Ham agrees. Ham, CEO of Answers in Genesis (AIG), has become perhaps the foremost living young Earth creationist in the world. He has authored more books and articles than seems humanly possible and has built AIG into a creationist powerhouse. He also made national headlines when the slickly modern Creation Museum opened in 2007.

He has also been looking for the opportunity to debate a prominent supporter of evolution.

And so it was that, as a severe snow and sleet emergency settled over the Cincinnati region, 900 people climbed into cars and wound their way out toward the airport to enter the gates of the Creation Museum. They did not come for the petting zoo, the zip line, or the seasonal camel rides, nor to see the animatronic Noah chortle to himself about just how easy it had really been to get dinosaurs inside his Ark. They did not come to see The Men in White, a 22-minute movie that plays in the museum's halls in which a young woman named Wendy sees that what she's been taught about evolution "doesn't make sense" and is then visited by two angels who help her understand the truth of six-day special creation. They did not come to see the exhibits explaining how all animals had, before the Fall of humanity into sin, been vegetarians.

Further Reading

They came to see Ken Ham debate TV presenter Bill Nye the Science Guy—an old-school creation v. evolution throwdown for the Powerpoint age. Even before it began, the debate had been good for both men. Traffic to AIG's website soared by 80 percent, Nye appeared on CNN, tickets sold out in two minutes, and post-debate interviews were lined up with Piers Morgan Live and MSNBC.

While plenty of Ham supporters filled the parking lot, so did people in bow ties and "Bill Nye is my Homeboy" T-shirts. They all followed the stamped dinosaur tracks to the museum's entrance, where a pack of AIG staffers wearing custom debate T-shirts stood ready to usher them into "Discovery Hall."

Security at the Creation Museum is always tight; the museum's security force is made up of sworn (but privately funded) Kentucky peace officers who carry guns, wear flat-brimmed state trooper-style hats, and operate their own K-9 unit. For the debate, Nye and Ham had agreed to more stringent measures. Visitors passed through metal detectors complete with secondary wand screenings, packages were prohibited in the debate hall itself, and the outer gates were closed 15 minutes before the debate began.

Inside the hall, packed with bodies and the blaze of high-wattage lights, the temperature soared. The empty stage looked—as everything at the museum does—professionally designed, with four huge video screens, custom debate banners, and a pair of lecterns sporting Mac laptops. 20 different video crews had set up cameras in the hall, and 70 media organizations had registered to attend. More than 10,000 churches were hosting local debate parties. As AIG technical staffers made final preparations, one checked the YouTube-hosted livestream—242,000 people had already tuned in before start time.

An AIG official took the stage eight minutes before start time. "We know there are people who disagree with each other in this room," he said. "No cheering or—please—any disruptive behavior."

At 6:59pm, the music stopped and the hall fell silent but for the suddenly prominent thrumming of the air conditioning. For half a minute, the anticipation was electric, all eyes fixed on the stage, and then the countdown clock ticked over to 7:00pm and the proceedings snapped to life. Nye, wearing his traditional bow tie, took the stage from the left; Ham appeared from the right. The two shook hands in the center to sustained applause, and CNN's Tom Foreman took up his moderating duties.

Ham had won the coin toss backstage and so stepped to his lectern to deliver brief opening remarks. "Creation is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era," he declared, blasting modern textbooks for "imposing the religion of atheism" on students.

"We're teaching people to think critically!" he said. "It's the creationists who should be teaching the kids out there."

And we were off.

Two kinds of science

Digging in the fossil fields of Colorado or North Dakota, scientists regularly uncover the bones of ancient creatures. No one doubts the existence of the bones themselves; they lie on the ground for anyone to observe or weigh or photograph. But in which animal did the bones originate? How long ago did that animal live? What did it look like? One of Ham's favorite lines is that the past "doesn't come with tags"—so the prehistory of a stegosaurus thigh bone has to be interpreted by scientists, who use their positions in the present to reconstruct the past.

For mainstream scientists, this is simply an obvious statement of our existential position. Until a real-life Dr. Emmett "Doc" Brown finds a way to power a Delorean with a 1.21 gigawatt flux capacitor in order to shoot someone back through time to observe the flaring-forth of the Universe, the formation of the Earth, or the origins of life, or the prehistoric past can't be known except by interpretation. Indeed, this isn't true only of prehistory; as Nye tried to emphasize, forensic scientists routinely use what they know of nature's laws to reconstruct past events like murders.

For Ham, though, science is broken into two categories, "observational" and "historical," and only observational science is trustworthy. In the initial 30 minute presentation of his position, Ham hammered the point home.

"You don't observe the past directly," he said. "You weren't there."

Ham spoke with the polish of a man who has covered this ground a hundred times before, has heard every objection, and has a smooth answer ready for each one.

In Ham's world, only changes that we can observe directly are the proper domain of science. Thus, when confronted with the issue of speciation, Ham readily admits that contemporary lab experiments on fast-breeding creatures like mosquitoes can produce new species. But he says that's simply "micro-evolution" below the family level. He doesn't believe that scientists can observe "macro-evolution," such as the alteration of a lobe-finned fish into a tiger over millions of years.

Because they can't see historical events unfold, scientists must rely on reconstructions of the past. Those might be accurate, but they simply rely on too many "assumptions" for Ham to trust them. When confronted during the debate with evidence from ancient trees which have more rings than there are years on the Adams Sychronological Chart, Ham simply shrugged.

"We didn't see those layers laid down," he said.

To him, the calculus of "one ring, one year" is merely an assumption when it comes to the past—an assumption possibly altered by cataclysmic events such as Noah's flood.

In other words, "historical science" is dubious; we should defer instead to the "observational" account of someone who witnessed all past events: God, said to have left humanity an eyewitness account of the world's creation in the book of Genesis. All historical reconstructions should thus comport with this more accurate observational account.

Mainstream scientists don't recognize this divide between observational and historical ways of knowing (much as they reject Ham's distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution). Dinosaur bones may not come with tags, but neither does observed contemporary reality—think of a doctor presented with a set of patient symptoms, who then has to interpret what she sees in order to arrive at a diagnosis.

Given that the distinction between two kinds of science provides Ham's key reason for accepting the "eyewitness account" of Genesis as a starting point, it was unsurprising to see Nye take generous whacks at the idea. You can't observe the past? "That's what we do in astronomy," said Nye in his opening presentation. Since light takes time to get here, "All we can do in astronomy is look at the past. By the way, you're looking at the past right now."

Those in the present can study the past with confidence, Nye said, because natural laws are generally constant and can be used to extrapolate into the past.

"This idea that you can separate the natural laws of the past from the natural laws you have now is at the heart of our disagreement," Nye said. "For lack of a better word, it's magical. I've appreciated magic since I was a kid, but it's not what we want in mainstream science."

How do scientists know that these natural laws are correctly understood in all their complexity and interplay? What operates as a check on their reconstructions? That's where the predictive power of evolutionary models becomes crucial, Nye said. Those models of the past should generate predictions which can then be verified—or disproved—through observations in the present.

For instance, evolutionary models suggest that land-based tetrapods can all be traced back to primitive, fish-like creatures that first made their way out of the water and onto solid ground—creatures that aren't quite lungfish and yet aren't quite amphibians. For years, there was a big gap in the fossil record around this expected transition. Then, in 2004, a research team found a number of these "fishapods" in the Canadian Arctic.

"Tiktaalik looks like a cross between the primitive fish it lived amongst and the first four-legged animals," wrote the research team as they introduced their discovery to the world.

"What we want in science—science as practiced on the outside—is the ability to predict," said Nye, pointing to the examples of Tiktaalik in biological evolution and the results of the Cosmic Background Explorer mission in cosmology. Mainstream scientific predictions, even those focused on the past, can in fact be tested against reality. So far, however, "Mr. Ham and his worldview does not have this capability," Nye said. "It cannot make predictions and show results."

1229 Reader Comments

EastmanA, would you say that Creationism does not allow for increasing genetic diversity?

Wheels of Confusion, does increasing genetic diversity include getting a non canine from canine, or a canine from a non canine? I imagine you would say yes to this question, and I would agree that it indeed it would, if it could be observed. However, from the quotes from abstracts previously given, concerning core and periphery populations, such as with salamanders, there are observed increases differentiation and variation, which does correspond with decreasing genetic diversity, not increasing genetic diversity. Some organisms have an "in-built" ability to change, eg, the nematode worm, Caenorhabditis Elegans, but they are still the "organism" . In C. Elegans' cell development, a cell does not have to receive an external cue in order to change: one set of regulatory molecules inside the cell can provoke production of another, and the cell can thus step through a series of different states autonomously. These states differ not only in their responsiveness to external signals, but also in other aspects of their internal chemistry, including proteins that stop or start the cell-division cycle. In this way, the internal mechanisms of the cell, together with the past and present signals received, dictate both the sequence of biochemical changes in the cell and the timing of its cell divisions. The specific molecular details of the mechanisms governing the temporal program of development are still mysterious. Remarkably little is known, even in the nematode embryo with its rigidly predictable pattern of cell divisions, about how the sequence of cell divisions is controlled. However, for the later stages, when the larva feeds and grows and moults to become an adult, it has been possible to identify some of the genes that control the timing of cellular events. Mutations in these genes cause heterochronic phenotypes: the cells in a larva of one stage behave as though they belonged to a larva of a different stage, or cells in the adult carry on dividing as though they belonged to a larva.Are heterochronic phenotypes examples of increasing genetic diversity?Mutations in the heterochronic genes cause temporal transformations in cell fates so that cells express developmental programs normally specific for cells at a different larval stage. I would say this is an example of variation, rather than increasing genetic diversity.I am not aware of examples of "increasing genetic diversity" except in cases where a population grows from an "outsider" coming in, as in the previous stated example in a post regarding a jaguar from a outside a geographic area joining another population. Overall, I do not believe that the net worldwide genetic diversity is increasing. Correct me if I am wrong. An interesting quote from the lab, from a Christian, Dr. Ian Macreadie, who has helped worked on drugs for AIDS sufferers, and who has an interest in drugs effecting mitochondrial functions:"All you see in the lab is either gene duplication, reshuffling of existing genes with a loss of information that might help a bug to survive e.g. by not binding to an antibiotic as effectively. But you never see any new information arising within a cell. Evolution would argue for things improving, whereas I see everything falling to pieces. Genes being corrupted, mutations causing an increasing community burden of inherited diseases. All things were designed well initially…… I always believed the Bible’s creation account. It’s beyond my comprehension that things could just developed from nothing and that we could have developed from “ape” ancestors. – Dr Ian Macreadie, now Associate Professor at RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia, was formerly Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute CSIRO, leading projects for 24 years. For his publications (if interested of course) see: http://rmit.edu.au/browse/About%20RMIT% ... s;STATUS=AIronic that a “science denier” should practice science, for so long, so “successfully” .

Because details of a claim that can be verified do not lend that verification to other claims made. Each claim must stand on its own.

Like other parts of the Bible the flood may not be a parable, necessarily; it may be an exaggerated [story of an] event. "... and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered" could have been less emphatic: "... and all the mountains [that could be seen] were covered."

Gimfred, how do you decide which is a parable and which is an historic account or reference? Jesus made use of both. Some of his sayings were "hard to catch" and did cause people to walk away from him, and even made his disciples grumble, such as when he said "I am the bread come done from heaven and he who eats of me shall live forever". In this passage he references the manna eaten by the Israelites (an historice reference), pointing to the fact of a new, better way. Luke 6:41-65

It would not be that weird for slightly different stories from different groups to add details such as localised 'enemies' and assign them to a central recognizable hero. As groups began to reintegrate, trade and homogenize the stories get amalgamated again. That is more plausible than that the physic anomalies in the stories were willed by a metaphysical entity.

Why is it implausible, that God should want to interact with people? Jesus was not metaphysical.

But I know the answer to that one: Creationism absolutely allows for increasing genetic diversity. It also allows for static genetic diversity, decreasing genetic diversity, or any combination of the three. God can do it any way He likes.

I believe I really understand why many religion apologists want so very much to "prove" their deity is real. Either it's a defensive move in the face of counter-evidence, or it's evangelical (using the broadest definition). One of the most fascinating (to me) phenomena of the religiously-minded is the often described "test of faith" specifically because it so well highlights the struggle going on as someone's brain tries to reconcile incompatibilities (if you have the stomach for it).

"I really, really WANT to prove to you (and me) that God is real (because, well, fuck! Wouldn't that be awesome? And proof is, well, proof!). Therefore I happily accept (and advocate) any reasoned arguments in support of the proposition. I also seek and would eagerly accept scientificproof of His existence. However, I have been taught to revere the virtue of religious faith which insists that belief and reason/proof are NOT connected."

I don't think EastmanA particularly cares about the "specific molecular details of the mechanisms governing the temporal program of development" except insofar as it pertains to his personal struggle to seek proof for something he's not supposed to test. He's flirting with abandoning that faith tenant and I suspect it's disconcerting because of the implications.

But I know the answer to that one: Creationism absolutely allows for increasing genetic diversity. It also allows for static genetic diversity, decreasing genetic diversity, or any combination of the three. God can do it any way He likes.

I believe I really understand why many religion apologists want so very much to "prove" their deity is real. Either it's a defensive move in the face of counter-evidence, or it's evangelical (using the broadest definition). One of the most fascinating (to me) phenomena of the religiously-minded is the often described "test of faith" specifically because it so well highlights the struggle going on as someone's brain tries to reconcile incompatibilities (if you have the stomach for it).

"I really, really WANT to prove to you (and me) that God is real (because, well, fuck! Wouldn't that be awesome? And proof is, well, proof!). Therefore I happily accept (and advocate) any reasoned arguments in support of the proposition. I also seek and would eagerly accept scientificproof of His existence. However, I have been taught to revere the virtue of religious faith which insists that belief and reason/proof are NOT connected."

I don't think EastmanA particularly cares about the "specific molecular details of the mechanisms governing the temporal program of development" except insofar as it pertains to his personal struggle to seek proof for something he's not supposed to test. He's flirting with abandoning that faith tenant and I suspect it's disconcerting because of the implications

My faith without action is dead. I am not flirting with giving up actively living my faith by doing. Evolution without increasing genetic diversity is dead , no chance of seeing increasing genetic diversity anytime soon.

But I know the answer to that one: Creationism absolutely allows for increasing genetic diversity. It also allows for static genetic diversity, decreasing genetic diversity, or any combination of the three. God can do it any way He likes.

I believe I really understand why many religion apologists want so very much to "prove" their deity is real. Either it's a defensive move in the face of counter-evidence, or it's evangelical (using the broadest definition). One of the most fascinating (to me) phenomena of the religiously-minded is the often described "test of faith" specifically because it so well highlights the struggle going on as someone's brain tries to reconcile incompatibilities (if you have the stomach for it).

"I really, really WANT to prove to you (and me) that God is real (because, well, fuck! Wouldn't that be awesome? And proof is, well, proof!). Therefore I happily accept (and advocate) any reasoned arguments in support of the proposition. I also seek and would eagerly accept scientificproof of His existence. However, I have been taught to revere the virtue of religious faith which insists that belief and reason/proof are NOT connected."

I don't think EastmanA particularly cares about the "specific molecular details of the mechanisms governing the temporal program of development" except insofar as it pertains to his personal struggle to seek proof for something he's not supposed to test. He's flirting with abandoning that faith tenant and I suspect it's disconcerting because of the implications.

My 2 cents: I think the debate's gotten into minutae/details of evolution and genetics that I don't understand enough to comment on. But when Wheels asks a simple 12-word question and Eastman responds with 619 words of jargon, my bullshit meter goes off. Not saying that Eastman is wrong or lying about anything, but I feel like he's redefining terms and cherry-picking examples to create some convoluted support his conclusions. You can prove that 2+2=5, if you redefine 2 just right, but that doesn't make it reasonable. And if it takes you over 600 words just to respond to a yes-or-no question, either you're not very good at debate (sometimes less is more!) or you're trying to pull a fast one.

Because details of a claim that can be verified do not lend that verification to other claims made. Each claim must stand on its own.

Like other parts of the Bible the flood may not be a parable, necessarily; it may be an exaggerated [story of an] event. "... and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered" could have been less emphatic: "... and all the mountains [that could be seen] were covered."

Gimfred, how do you decide which is a parable and which is an historic account or reference? Jesus made use of both. Some of his sayings were "hard to catch" and did cause people to walk away from him, and even made his disciples grumble, such as when he said "I am the bread come done from heaven and he who eats of me shall live forever". In this passage he references the manna eaten by the Israelites (an historice reference), pointing to the fact of a new, better way. Luke 6:41-65

It would not be that weird for slightly different stories from different groups to add details such as localised 'enemies' and assign them to a central recognizable hero. As groups began to reintegrate, trade and homogenize the stories get amalgamated again. That is more plausible than that the physic anomalies in the stories were willed by a metaphysical entity.

Why is it implausible, that God should want to interact with people? Jesus was not metaphysical.

:sigh: Like html but with square instead of angle brackets! To intersect someone else's quote use [/quote] To restart remove the / before the tag word quote. You have to open then close the tags (the stuff inside the brackets).

Not sure that this is a serious question. Mostly I don't bother with any of it. If we don't have evidence for it then it isn't confirmed as historical. Put in which ever other literary category you need to make yourself feel comfortable. & no, the Bible claiming Jesus saying it does not make historical evidence that event. That is evidence that someone thought the event referenced was historical. We need more verification. Especially as it was claimed by a famous person.

Do you realise people claim others said things that actually were not said? Sometimes it is to make the others look bad, but sometimes it is to lend authority to the claimants' object of affection. I used to stand in church and claim s/Jesus/God the Father/Holy Spirit was saying things that were appearing as thoughts in my head. No one else could hear them.* Or read scriptures as though my reading it at that time was purposed by God to comfort, encourage or strengthen me. It was confirmation bias at its worst.

As for your second question the implausibility is not the existence of the deity; it is that it leaps from a generic possible being to a specific being (in this case YHWH) without showing any reason to think the connection is true. Also, the story of the God YHWH as told by modern Christianity ignores the historical evidence for his changes over the centuries leaving me to think they are more determined to avoid the truth if they don't like it. **

Another problem for the implausibility is that the God of Truth supposedly covers his tracks when inserting himself from outside the universe. That is energetic. And given his interactions as claimed by the Bible, the universe should not be be having like a closed system. (The balance of energy)

Yet another problem is that the interactions themselves render the laws of physics to be lies. The supposed order YHWH brings is ignored to resolve the conflict of the story, suggesting the laws that govern us are a farce to by whimsically ignored to suit YHWH, yet rigorously enforced to our (humans) detriment. I'd give anything to be able to multiply food like Jesus did just to feed the poor in my 3k people town. Or heal the sick to alleviate their suffering. Just think what someone who could circumvent the laws of physics to benefit the world could do. It would be mere charity if one did have that power. But I have to obey the laws of physics.

Got a bit off track, but the implausibility also stems from the positive, confident knowledge about an unverified event, about the motivations of an unverified --- possibly unverifiable --- being. Nor has it been verified that Jesus was actually the God YHWH. That factor has been a doctrine that grew over the centuries. As far as I can tell, initially Jesus was an avatar of YHWH at best though more likely a prophet of YHWH. You need to verify that claim of the divinity of Jesus among numerous other claims. And that requires demonstrating the existence of YHWH itself, not just a possibility of a deity. That last part is what the most rigorous of believers do if they ever get around to demonstrating anything. The possibility of a deity is.. possible.

If I keep going this post will take forever. Sorry about the tangents. (Wouldn't it be great to have a preview button on the front page comments?)

* If that is a method the supreme entity does talk to us, I'm amazed that it doesn't occur simultaneously word for word to a bunch of people at once. Instead you get vague interpretations of what one's god is saying through a single person which often suits the theme of the congregation at the time. You have to look into the psychology of religions and how the world around us influences thought generation to understand how backward my 'messages from God' were. They were creating 'God' in my image.

What on earth would you consider to be evidence of increasing genetic diversity? Because if you are expecting an individual organism to become something its parent wasn't you are arguing with the wrong hypothesis. Otherwise, why don't you accept the increase in diversity that is contained in the fossil record? In the observed increasing diversification of species as observed in E.coli, flies, rats, mice, birds, lizards, snakes, dogs, just to name a few of the recognisable evidence of evolution.?

What on earth would you consider to be evidence of increasing genetic diversity? Because if you are expecting an individual organism to become something its parent wasn't you are arguing with the wrong hypothesis. Otherwise, why don't you accept the increase in diversity that is contained in the fossil record? In the observed increasing diversification of species as observed in E.coli, flies, rats, mice, birds, lizards, snakes, dogs, just to name a few of the recognisable evidence of evolution.?

He/she would have to actually understand what "canine" and "non-canine" actually mean, in the biological sense, before you could ever get a meaningful answer to that question.

Comprehending the immense stretch of time it takes for practical speciation to occur, not to mention to arrive at a distinction at the family level, requires the ability to ruminate on a temporal scale which is explicitly forbidden by their adopted world view. The old adage about "making someone understand something when their living is predicated on them not understanding it" applies here, but on an even more profound level.

The thought of anything occurring over millions of years is too ludicrous to entertain, a priori. In Creationistic math, such numbers are uncountably infinite and irrational.

What on earth would you consider to be evidence of increasing genetic diversity? Because if you are expecting an individual organism to become something its parent wasn't you are arguing with the wrong hypothesis. Otherwise, why don't you accept the increase in diversity that is contained in the fossil record? In the observed increasing diversification of species as observed in E.coli, flies, rats, mice, birds, lizards, snakes, dogs, just to name a few of the recognisable evidence of evolution.?

He/she would have to actually understand what "canine" and "non-canine" actually mean, in the biological sense, before you could ever get a meaningful answer to that question..

It's been explained to him many times, by many people, in many ways (just here on ArsTechnica).The record / the results would appear to be self explanatory.

Because details of a claim that can be verified do not lend that verification to other claims made. Each claim must stand on its own.

Like other parts of the Bible the flood may not be a parable, necessarily; it may be an exaggerated [story of an] event. "... and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered" could have been less emphatic: "... and all the mountains [that could be seen] were covered."

Gimfred, how do you decide which is a parable and which is an historic account or reference? Jesus made use of both. Some of his sayings were "hard to catch" and did cause people to walk away from him, and even made his disciples grumble, such as when he said "I am the bread come done from heaven and he who eats of me shall live forever". In this passage he references the manna eaten by the Israelites (an historice reference), pointing to the fact of a new, better way. Luke 6:41-65

It would not be that weird for slightly different stories from different groups to add details such as localised 'enemies' and assign them to a central recognizable hero. As groups began to reintegrate, trade and homogenize the stories get amalgamated again. That is more plausible than that the physic anomalies in the stories were willed by a metaphysical entity.

Why is it implausible, that God should want to interact with people? Jesus was not metaphysical.

:sigh: Like html but with square instead of angle brackets!

I don't think he knows what that means. I don't think he knows what 'html' is (beyond the most rudimentary, vague cultural "buzzword" awareness). I think he just hits the "reply" button and starts typing out his long screeds...and cordially ignores anything we say that he doesn't understand (like the "canine"/"non canine" business).

I know several people like this, who just disregard whatever doesn't make sense to them. They tend to be people who hold forth at great length...the two traits go hand in hand.

“ Would you say that Creationism does not allow for increasing genetic diversity? "(Does that include adding colour and increasing size? Was that randomly generated, or did you program it in?)In answer to your question: No. Nothing + living creatures (including us) = increased genetic diversity. Yes , genetic diversity did increase at the beginning, when different types of life were added. By definition of different life-forms being added separately, where something did not once exist, and then existed, there was an increase. As previously mentioned, “physical life” was "loaded" up from the beginning, from nothing.

Would you say that the message or meaning that is “carried” on DNA is separate to mass and energy?

Ironically, with all the argument about creation, from a Christian perspective, is that the “old creation” using the “diversity observed in genetics” is not the “key” for inheritance of the “new” creation. As Jesus said to the “teacher of Israel” – Nicodemus, “that which is born of the flesh, is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit”. (John 3:6) So becoming an inheritor, and partaker of “the Spirit” through normal reproduction is not possible. Neither is it possible through “outward signs of variation”. As Paul wrote: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature” Gal 6:15. This is an inward change. Again ironically, such a change is also a “bit by bit” transformation. “And we all, who with unveiled faces beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image, from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.” 2 Cor 3:18

So for the Christian, an increasing spiritual likeness of Jesus Christ is the goal, rather than an “increasing in genetic diversity.”

“ Would you say that Creationism does not allow for increasing genetic diversity? "In answer to your question: No. Nothing + living creatures (including us) = increased genetic diversity. Yes , genetic diversity did increase at the beginning, when different types of life were added. By definition of different life-forms being added separately, where something did not once exist, and then existed, there was an increase. As previously mentioned, “physical life” was "loaded" up from the beginning, from nothing.

Okay, but after the original Creation event, once God is done Creating all the kinds (presumably today), that means we don't get any more genetic diversity out of the living things that are around now, right?

Because details of a claim that can be verified do not lend that verification to other claims made. Each claim must stand on its own.

Like other parts of the Bible the flood may not be a parable, necessarily; it may be an exaggerated [story of an] event. "... and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered" could have been less emphatic: "... and all the mountains [that could be seen] were covered."

Gimfred, how do you decide which is a parable and which is an historic account or reference? Jesus made use of both. Some of his sayings were "hard to catch" and did cause people to walk away from him, and even made his disciples grumble, such as when he said "I am the bread come done from heaven and he who eats of me shall live forever". In this passage he references the manna eaten by the Israelites (an historice reference), pointing to the fact of a new, better way. Luke 6:41-65

It would not be that weird for slightly different stories from different groups to add details such as localised 'enemies' and assign them to a central recognizable hero. As groups began to reintegrate, trade and homogenize the stories get amalgamated again. That is more plausible than that the physic anomalies in the stories were willed by a metaphysical entity.

Why is it implausible, that God should want to interact with people? Jesus was not metaphysical.

:sigh: Like html but with square instead of angle brackets!

I don't think he knows what that means. I don't think he knows what 'html' is (beyond the most rudimentary, vague cultural "buzzword" awareness). I think he just hits the "reply" button and starts typing out his long screeds...and cordially ignores anything we say that he doesn't understand (like the "canine"/"non canine" business).

I know several people like this, who just disregard whatever doesn't make sense to them. They tend to be people who hold forth at great length...the two traits go hand in hand.

Well, sure. He can't handle quoting and you want him to deal with stacks and RPN?

What else, beside arguing on the Internet on His behalf, has the Almighty commanded of you? Might He ask you tomorrow to do something illegally violent?

Thoughtful, as mentioned, I am a follower of Jesus Christ, who set an example, and commanded his followers to love as He did. "as I have loved you, love one another". and "no greater love has one to lay down his life....". Such love does not include doing something illegally violent.

What else, beside arguing on the Internet on His behalf, has the Almighty commanded of you? Might He ask you tomorrow to do something illegally violent?

Thoughtful, as mentioned, I am a follower of Jesus Christ, who set an example, and commanded his followers to love as He did. "as I have loved you, love one another". and "no greater love has one to lay down his life....". Such love does not include doing something illegally violent.

History is packed to the brim with reasons to find that response not in the least reassuring.

So why are you so hung up on the idea of genetic diversity increasing/decreasing in the first place? Isn't decreasing genetic diversity in modern time supposed to buttress your arguments about Creation?

What else, beside arguing on the Internet on His behalf, has the Almighty commanded of you? Might He ask you tomorrow to do something illegally violent?

Thoughtful, as mentioned, I am a follower of Jesus Christ, who set an example, and commanded his followers to love as He did. "as I have loved you, love one another". and "no greater love has one to lay down his life....". Such love does not include doing something illegally violent.

You don't need to assert Jesus' divinity to convince me that, as a basic rule of thumb, one ought to treat others with love.

Are you a follower of the How-to-Beat-Your-Slaves Jesus of Luke 12:47-48? How about the Poor-With-You-Always Jesus of Mark 14:7? And the Slay-Mine-Enemies Jesus of Luke 19:27? Paranoid Jesus of Matt. 12:30? Furnace-of-Fire Jesus of Matt. 13:41-42?

Why does He get the title, "Christ"?

There have been many notable individuals who have claimed direct communication (including significant instruction) with Yahweh (plenty of gods have been said by their believers to communicate so He's not unique in this--but He's largely got the market cornered these days since He's the same Guy for JCLDS, Jews, Christians, and Muslims)...Are you among them?

How have you decided which Yahweh (the one who is both Himself and Jesus in your case) is the "real" one?

What else, beside arguing on the Internet on His behalf, has the Almighty commanded of you? Might He ask you tomorrow to do something illegally violent?

Thoughtful, as mentioned, I am a follower of Jesus Christ, who set an example, and commanded his followers to love as He did. "as I have loved you, love one another". and "no greater love has one to lay down his life....". Such love does not include doing something illegally violent.

You don't need to assert Jesus' divinity to convince me that, as a basic rule of thumb, one ought to treat others with love.

Are you a follower of the How-to-Beat-Your-Slaves Jesus of Luke 12:47-48? How about the Poor-With-You-Always Jesus of Mark 14:7? And the Slay-Mine-Enemies Jesus of Luke 19:27? Paranoid Jesus of Matt. 12:30? Furnace-of-Fire Jesus of Matt. 13:41-42?

Why does He get the title, "Christ"?

There have been many notable individuals who have claimed direct communication (including significant instruction) with Yahweh (plenty of gods have been said by their believers to communicate so He's not unique in this--but He's largely got the market cornered these days since He's the same Guy for JCLDS, Jews, Christians, and Muslims)...Are you among them?

How have you decided which Yahweh (the one who is both Himself and Jesus in your case) is the "real" one?

This point's been made before, but it's always worth making again. The best and most eloquent presentation of the idea that I've encountered is Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great.

Remember that (irritating) line in The Usual Suspects where the guy says that "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist"? Well, the greatest trick that religion (and specifically Christianity) ever pulled was convincing the world that it's a force for good.

History and our modern world are each filled to the brim with people doing the most monstrous things imaginable and getting away with it because they're "people of faith." Even setting aside the millions slaughtered directly in the name of religion, the blood toll of our species myths is astronomically high. In our society today, the most egregious elements of intolerance, greed, ignorance, and sheer backwardness are all conspicuously attached to the Bible (just ask them). This is, needless to say, particularly true in politics. The whole idea that somebody should be thought of as "a good person" because he or she "is a Christian" needs to be thrown on the ash-heap of history.

The second greatest trick religion ever pulled (more recently) is creating an environment where "faith" is somehow above and beyond all reproach and criticism. We must "respect people's beliefs" no matter what -- we are not allowed to critique ideas if they are connected to religion. (It's evolved as overcompensation for the previous model wherein we murdered each other over matters of faith.) The rule is, of course, selectively applied, since anti-American forces can attack us (quite literally) for being "heathens" and we are allowed to condemn non-Christian societies as "Godless" (yes, this still happens all over our great land).

These two "tricks," taken together, essentially comprise a methodology by which moral and ethical values may be arbitrarily re-assigned in whatever way is most advantageous to those performing the assignation.

What else, beside arguing on the Internet on His behalf, has the Almighty commanded of you? Might He ask you tomorrow to do something illegally violent?

Thoughtful, as mentioned, I am a follower of Jesus Christ, who set an example, and commanded his followers to love as He did. "as I have loved you, love one another". and "no greater love has one to lay down his life....". Such love does not include doing something illegally violent.

You don't need to assert Jesus' divinity to convince me that, as a basic rule of thumb, one ought to treat others with love.

Are you a follower of the How-to-Beat-Your-Slaves Jesus of Luke 12:47-48? How about the Poor-With-You-Always Jesus of Mark 14:7? And the Slay-Mine-Enemies Jesus of Luke 19:27? Paranoid Jesus of Matt. 12:30? Furnace-of-Fire Jesus of Matt. 13:41-42?

Why does He get the title, "Christ"?

There have been many notable individuals who have claimed direct communication (including significant instruction) with Yahweh (plenty of gods have been said by their believers to communicate so He's not unique in this--but He's largely got the market cornered these days since He's the same Guy for JCLDS, Jews, Christians, and Muslims)...Are you among them?

How have you decided which Yahweh (the one who is both Himself and Jesus in your case) is the "real" one?

This point's been made before, but it's always worth making again. The best and most eloquent presentation of the idea that I've encountered is Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great.

Remember that (irritating) line in The Usual Suspects where the guy says that "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist"? Well, the greatest trick that religion (and specifically Christianity) ever pulled was convincing the world that it's a force for good.

History and our modern world are each filled to the brim with people doing the most monstrous things imaginable and getting away with it because they're "people of faith." Even setting aside the millions slaughtered directly in the name of religion, the blood toll of our species myths is astronomically high. In our society today, the most egregious elements of intolerance, greed, ignorance, and sheer backwardness are all conspicuously attached to the Bible (just ask them). This is, needless to say, particularly true in politics. The whole idea that somebody should be thought of as "a good person" because he or she "is a Christian" needs to be thrown on the ash-heap of history.

I feel it's worth mentioning that religion can be a force for good. Plenty of devoted people out there that have done, and continue to do, good works for the poor and disadvantaged because it's what their faith asks of them. The problems are that 1) the loudest people are usually trying to browbeat others into doing things they don't want or otherwise shaming them, and 2) sometimes people come to the false conclusion that all charity and good works come from religious devotion, and that therefore religious devotion is a requirement of a good and charitable person.

What else, beside arguing on the Internet on His behalf, has the Almighty commanded of you? Might He ask you tomorrow to do something illegally violent?

Thoughtful, as mentioned, I am a follower of Jesus Christ, who set an example, and commanded his followers to love as He did. "as I have loved you, love one another". and "no greater love has one to lay down his life....". Such love does not include doing something illegally violent.

You don't need to assert Jesus' divinity to convince me that, as a basic rule of thumb, one ought to treat others with love.

Are you a follower of the How-to-Beat-Your-Slaves Jesus of Luke 12:47-48? How about the Poor-With-You-Always Jesus of Mark 14:7? And the Slay-Mine-Enemies Jesus of Luke 19:27? Paranoid Jesus of Matt. 12:30? Furnace-of-Fire Jesus of Matt. 13:41-42?

Why does He get the title, "Christ"?

There have been many notable individuals who have claimed direct communication (including significant instruction) with Yahweh (plenty of gods have been said by their believers to communicate so He's not unique in this--but He's largely got the market cornered these days since He's the same Guy for JCLDS, Jews, Christians, and Muslims)...Are you among them?

How have you decided which Yahweh (the one who is both Himself and Jesus in your case) is the "real" one?

This point's been made before, but it's always worth making again. The best and most eloquent presentation of the idea that I've encountered is Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great.

Remember that (irritating) line in The Usual Suspects where the guy says that "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist"? Well, the greatest trick that religion (and specifically Christianity) ever pulled was convincing the world that it's a force for good.

History and our modern world are each filled to the brim with people doing the most monstrous things imaginable and getting away with it because they're "people of faith." Even setting aside the millions slaughtered directly in the name of religion, the blood toll of our species myths is astronomically high. In our society today, the most egregious elements of intolerance, greed, ignorance, and sheer backwardness are all conspicuously attached to the Bible (just ask them). This is, needless to say, particularly true in politics. The whole idea that somebody should be thought of as "a good person" because he or she "is a Christian" needs to be thrown on the ash-heap of history.

I feel it's worth mentioning that religion can be a force for good. Plenty of devoted people out there that have done, and continue to do, good works for the poor and disadvantaged because it's what their faith asks of them. The problems are that 1) the loudest people are usually trying to browbeat others into doing things they don't want or otherwise shaming them, and 2) sometimes people come to the false conclusion that all charity and good works come from religious devotion, and that therefore religious devotion is a requirement of a good and charitable person.

It is worth mentioning, and it can be a force for good. But the important point is that it's fundamentally arbitrary and yet is viewed as absolute (or as "un-critiquable" as I elaborated).

If we were talking about a secular social force we could have an argument about whether that force (a political or social movement, say) was a force for good or for evil, and various people would take various sides. But with religion you're not even supposed to have the argument.

As a minor example, remember that people got after Mitt Romney for not being sufficiently philanthropic or charitable. His campaign countered by pointing out....his tithing to the Mormon Church (which is a church membership requirement anyway). My point isn't that the money wasn't put to good use -- maybe it was; maybe it wasn't (although I suspect it probably wasn't) -- my point is that from a political standpoint the question was considered to have been settled. (Nobody on the other ticket was allowed to say, "What kind of charity is that? We're talking about real charity!")

Thoughful wrote: “You don't need to assert Jesus' divinity to convince me that, as a basic rule of thumb, one ought to treat others with love.”True, Jesus does not need me to assert his divinity. His actions assert it.

Love the rule of thumb: I know for a fact I have failed in this requirement. I know I have treated some people better than others in the past because of certain characteristics. Previously I have not loved others as much as I love myself. Jesus did perfectly love or “treat others with love” perfectly, and this does set him apart from every religious leader, and person in history.

James wrote: You will do all right, if you obey the most important law (“royal” law in the Greek translation) in the scriptures. It is the law that commands us to love others as much as we love ourselves. But if you treat some people better than others, you have done wrong, and the scriptures teach you have sinned. James 2:8-9. I know I have sinned, and as such have broken the “royal” law.

As John also wrote : “Everyone who sins breaks God’s law, because sin is the same as breaking God’s law. You know that Christ came to take away sins. He isn’t sinful, and people who stay one in their hearts with him won’t keep on sinning. If they do keep on sinning, they don’t know Christ, and they have never seen him.” 1 John 3:4-6

I am sure we both agree love is good, and also that we have both failed to completely uphold this “rule of thumb”.

For me “seeing” Christ meant that I saw my own failure in this respect, and seeing his non failure to completely obey the rule of love.

Thoughful wrote: “ Are you a follower of the How-to-Beat-Your-Slaves Jesus of Luke 12:47-48? How about the Poor-With-You-Always Jesus of Mark 14:7? And the Slay-Mine-Enemies Jesus of Luke 19:27? Paranoid Jesus of Matt. 12:30? Furnace-of-Fire Jesus of Matt. 13:41-42?”

How to beat your slave reference. Read the whole context from Luke 12: 35-48. If love is the goal, why would a slave start beating all the other servants (v 45) , and as such not be liable for punishment from the master when the master returns? Why would a slave beat all the other slaves and think he can get away with it? Is this following the rule of thumb to love others?

Yes I choose to follow the Master’s directive to look after others, and not beat them.

The Poor with you Always reference. Read the whole context from Mark 14:3-9. Jesus said the lady who poured the expensive perfume on his head had done a beautiful thing, as well as being practical, preparing his body for burial, John 12 5-6 says Judas Iscariot who was going to betray Jesus said “Why wasn’t this perfume sold for 300 silver coins and the money given to the poor?”Judas didn’t really care about the poor. He asked this because he carried the money bag and sometimes would steal from it. Interestingly, the narrative after this account of the lady pouring the perfume, is the account of Judas Iscariot going to the chief priests to “make a deal” to get some money (30 pieces of silver) from them for betraying Jesus. Judas used his position for his “own benefit,”; the lady with the perfume did not.

So, who was acting by the rule of thumb of love, Judas Iscariot, or the lady with the perfume?

Yes I choose to make use of what I have and my position, in the service of others, rather than to betray others.

Slay Mine Enemies reference. Read the whole context from Luke 12: 11-27. You are right! Jesus is the king referenced in the passage. Who is the servant that was slain? The servant that ignored the princes’s directive. What have those who did the right thing got to fear?

Yes I choose to follow the king’s directive, and don’t listen to those who say “We don’t want this man to be our king.” (v14)

Paranoid Jesus reference. Read the whole context Matthew 12:22-37. Jesus had just cured a man who could not see or talk, and the Pharisees accused Jesus as being aligned with Beelzebul. If you call being “paranoid” about doing good to others, yes, I must be paranoid too in following Jesus’ example.

Thoughful wrote: “ Why does He get the title, "Christ"?”

Christ fulfilled all the prophecies of the Messiah. Christ means the “anointed one.” In Luke 4:18 he uses Isaiah’s words as being fulfilled in himself: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me....”

Why does Jesus get the title of Christ? God’s promise came true, just as Isaiah the prophet had said”Here is my chosen servant! I love him and he please me. I will give him my Spirit, and he will bring justice to the nations.”

Jesus tells Pilate directly that he is the King, but his kingdom is not of this realm. I choose to believe that Jesus is the King, as per Luke 12, about the king who is returning.

Thoughful wrote: “ There have been many notable individuals who have claimed direct communication (including significant instruction) with Yahweh (plenty of gods have been said by their believers to communicate so He's not unique in this--but He's largely got the market cornered these days since He's the same Guy for JCLDS, Jews, Christians, and Muslims)...Are you among them? “

Who of the other notable individuals lived a sinless life, died for our sins and rose again? None. I confess I have not lived a sinless life, but Jesus did, and he was chosen as the “Lamb” that offered his life as an acceptable sacrifice for our redemption. No other religious leader can do such a thing. According to Jesus, whoever sins is a slave of sin, and therefore needs a redemption price to be brought out of slavery. His life was the redemption price. Which other “god” has come to earth and did the things that Jesus did? Which other “god” fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah? Which other “god” rose from the dead?

Thoughful wrote: “ How have you decided which Yahweh (the one who is both Himself and Jesus in your case) is the "real" one?”

Jesus Christ fulfilled the all prophecies regarding the Messiah. Search the scriptures... which prophecy concerning the Messiah did Jesus not fulfill? Jesus told the Pharisees that because they did not believe Moses writings about Jesus, how then could they expect to believe what Jesus’ spoke about himself. Jesus actions also speak for themselves that he is “the one”. Jesus used scripture as an authority concerning his identity, and his own actions backed this up. No other religious leader fulfilled such prophecies including dying for the sins of the world and rising from the dead.... “My righteous one shall not see decay.” Jesus Christ said “salvation is from the Jews”- again, he fulfilled Jewish prophets’ words. How can I trust the scriptures? The same way Jesus Christ did. In Acts, the Bereans looked at the scriptures to see if what the apostles were saying about Jesus was true.

I believe that Jesus did say the words and meant them as truth when he said “today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” (Luke 4:21), giving reference to himself from the book of Isaiah. Yes, it is a choice to believe if he did say it, or was lying or not. When the people in Nazareth heard him talking then about Elijah and Elisha being sent to non Israelites, as a lesson in their non belief, they wanted to kill him by throwing Jesus off a cliff. I come to Jesus Christ with belief, not unbelief.

I believe John the Baptist’s testimony when he said this about Jesus: “Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!”John 1:29

Yes I believe the words as written by John where he says: “But these are written so that you will put your faith is Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God. If you have faith n Him, you will have true life.” John 20:31

Thoughful wrote: “You don't need to assert Jesus' divinity to convince me that, as a basic rule of thumb, one ought to treat others with love.”True, Jesus does not need me to assert his divinity. His actions assert it.

This does not follow. You're missing the point entirely (more on this below). The issue is, finding and approving of a message of compassion, empathy and basic fairness in Christianity can happen without any dependence on the divine. In other words, the teachings of Christianity have ethical value whether you believe that Jesus was the son of God or if you simply believe that he was an influential leader.

You totally misunderstand and go off on a tangent about your own beliefs and why you, personally, believe in Jesus' divinity. (And you don't even make a well-formed point; it's just a truism. You're basically saying that you believe He was divine because you believe in the veracity of the story about Him in which He performs miracles and other divine actions, which proves nothing and settles nothing.)

Quote:

Love the rule of thumb: I know for a fact I have failed in this requirement. I know I have treated some people better than others in the past because of certain characteristics. Previously I have not loved others as much as I love myself. Jesus did perfectly love or “treat others with love” perfectly, and this does set him apart from every religious leader, and person in history.

(Etc., etc. etc.)

The rest of this is similarly flawed (in other words, you're still missing the point). Thoughtful is bringing up a series of contradictory or problematic passages from the Gospels -- places where Jesus said questionable stuff -- and wants to know how you square these with your beliefs. The point, obviously, is to show that it's an inconsistent text providing an unclear picture at best, and that, therefore (as many of us have been saying over and over here) it's dependent on way too much post-facto creative interpretation to be seen as any kind of coherent or rigorous guide for living. In other words, those people who view it as such have to be filling in the blank spots or overlooking the problems.

Do you understand this? Of course not. You seem to think that Thoughtful really wants to know about your own personal struggle with scripture and how you've reconciled it all. (You don't seem to grasp that he's using you as an example to make a point).

You seem like a nice enough person, and you're being very accommodating, but you don't seem to be engaged in the same discussion as the rest of us.

Since I left the discussion it has devolved into a religious debate. I think this is the way evolutionists prefer it. It's easier to debate a religious nutter than to prove their own science.

To be fair, your contributions to the thread have been about as productive and facts-based as the religious nutter's.

It wouldn't feel right being here without you trolling the thread trying to keep this a them against us battle.

Your first comment above reads as though you don't agree that sincere religious believers see the science of specification via natural selection as a real threat to their worldview (and their ability to impose that worldview on others). Your second comment reads as a childish, frustrated retort along the lines of "I'm rubber and you're glue..."(not that I'm claiming any high ground here)

Since I left the discussion it has devolved into a religious debate. I think this is the way evolutionists prefer it. It's easier to debate a religious nutter than to prove their own science.

To be fair, your contributions to the thread have been about as productive and facts-based as the religious nutter's.

It wouldn't feel right being here without you trolling the thread trying to keep this a them against us battle.

Your first comment above reads as though you don't agree that sincere religious believers see the science of specification via natural selection as a real threat to their worldview (and their ability to impose that worldview on others). Your second comment reads as a childish, frustrated retort along the lines of "I'm rubber and you're glue..."(not that I'm claiming any high ground here)

I don't think the debate should be science against religion. In this case, it appears more like religion against religion. I would like to see real evidence supporting the evolutionary theories. Not simply, there can't be a God so this is our only alternative.

Since I left the discussion it has devolved into a religious debate. I think this is the way evolutionists prefer it. It's easier to debate a religious nutter than to prove their own science.

To be fair, your contributions to the thread have been about as productive and facts-based as the religious nutter's.

It wouldn't feel right being here without you trolling the thread trying to keep this a them against us battle.

Your first comment above reads as though you don't agree that sincere religious believers see the science of specification via natural selection as a real threat to their worldview (and their ability to impose that worldview on others). Your second comment reads as a childish, frustrated retort along the lines of "I'm rubber and you're glue..."(not that I'm claiming any high ground here)

I don't think the debate should be science against religion. In this case, it appears more like religion against religion. I would like to see real evidence supporting the evolutionary theories. Not simply, there can't be a God so this is our only alternative.

There are (at least) two valid tactics when dealing with any argument. One is to discredit the argument posed by others, another is to present evidence that supports your own position. Why ignore one?

I'm distressed that you haven't found any "real" evidence in support of speciation through natural selection. Just a few moments with Google (or Google Scholar if you wish for more in-depth work) reveals a great deal of generally accepted evidence in favor of natural selection. Here is a very simple example of the results available (nylon eating bacteria is one of my favorites).

What's most depressing to me it the ability of many to ignore (or propose ridiculous alternative explanations regarding) such evidence only because they've already decided that natural selection cannot be true as it conflicts with an ancient myth. Follow the evidence to the truth rather than choosing an answer and seeking evidence in support of it.

Since I left the discussion it has devolved into a religious debate. I think this is the way evolutionists prefer it. It's easier to debate a religious nutter than to prove their own science.

To be fair, your contributions to the thread have been about as productive and facts-based as the religious nutter's.

It wouldn't feel right being here without you trolling the thread trying to keep this a them against us battle.

Your first comment above reads as though you don't agree that sincere religious believers see the science of specification via natural selection as a real threat to their worldview (and their ability to impose that worldview on others). Your second comment reads as a childish, frustrated retort along the lines of "I'm rubber and you're glue..."(not that I'm claiming any high ground here)

I don't think the debate should be science against religion. In this case, it appears more like religion against religion. I would like to see real evidence supporting the evolutionary theories. Not simply, there can't be a God so this is our only alternative.

Every single scientific theory assumes that there is no divine being controlling and manipulating the relationship between events and outcomes. Evolution is not special in that regard.